stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r667638 - /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities/20.forward.cpp
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:47:13 GMT
Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
[...]
>> We ususally don't use the __FILE__ tag with code that is in 
>> the original
>> test file. I'm not exactly sure why, but I don't recall ever seeing it
>> used.
>> Perhaps this is to reduce the amount of output generated in the output
>> files?
> 
> Hehe.  Who knows why some files omit it.

Passing null to rw_assert() makes the driver substitute the file
name argument passed to rw_test().

> I think its just something
> that's
> been carried over without a second's thought.  Sort of like why many
> template
> parameters are named "_TypeT" when there is only one type parameter.
> The name
> "_TypeT" is actually only needed in contexts where there's a
> corresponding
> "_TypeU".  Otherwise, the name "_Type" is sufficient.

FYI: The reason for the _Type prefix to T or U is to prevent
collisions with system macros named _T (or _U). When we found
the problem we just globally inserted the _Type prefix into
the names of all typed template parameters. I personally like
the T in there for consistency with all the other names.

> 
>> Another thing to note is that most of the stdcxx tests don't display
>> anything other than the header when they run, unless something fails.
> 
> Ah.  The --trace option is new to me.  I guess it's supposed to act sort
> of like the the rw_info() calls.  I'll keep that in mind when writing
> test code in the future.

Right. The option makes the informational messages pretty
much redundant.

Martin

Mime
View raw message